Joram <joram.no...@gmx.de> writes: > Hi, > > it might not be obvious to strangers to the Helmholtz pitch notation > system [1], but shifting the octave is *not* absolute.
LilyPond does not really employ the Helmholtz pitch notation system. We write c, instead of C and c,, instead of C with a subscripted I and c,,, instead of C with a subscripted II. While Helmholtz discusses the absolute and relative character of _keys_ (mentioning that the tunings of bowed string instruments and brass instruments are based on some natural intervals), I don't see him using "absolute" in respect to octaves (cf "Die Lehre von den Tonempfindungen als physiologischer Grundlage für die Theorie der Musik", 37MB scanned PDF at <URL:http://www.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de/indexer-vvv/wasbleibt/27162822> and a few text extracts at <URL:http://www.kilchb.de/rein_helmholtz.html>). > So the input \absolute c'' { c' } for c''' is a contradiction in > itself. Shrug. What LilyPond deems "\relative" bears no relation whatsoever to "relativity" in any known notational system. So I don't see the point in obsessing about an optional modification of "\absolute" input. \absolute c'' is proposed as a notational convenience. Nobody complains that \absolute \transpose c es { c d e } is a contradiction in itself since it does not refer to the absolute key c \major. > That’s why I strongly recommend not to use \absolute for some kind of > non-absolute notation. Well, that's one argument based on personal associations. I don't say that it is invalid, but we are talking about a tradeoff here. Another argument is that we don't want to introduce too many different commands for what amounts to a consistent variation on one concept. Basically we have to decide between the following schemes: a) \relative { c'' g' e c } \relative f { c'' f' e c } \relative c'' { c g' e c } \absolute { c'' g'' e'' c'' } \fixed c { c'' g'' e'' c'' } \fixed c'' { c g e c } b) \relative { c'' g' e c } \relative f { c'' f' e c } \relative c'' { c g' e c } \absolute { c'' g'' e'' c'' } \fixed { c'' g'' e'' c'' } \fixed c { c'' g'' e'' c'' } \fixed c'' { c g e c } c) \relative { c'' g' e c } \relative f { c'' f' e c } \relative c'' { c g' e c } \absolute { c'' g'' e'' c'' } \absolute c { c'' g'' e'' c'' } \absolute c'' { c g e c } d) \relative { c'' g' e c } \relative f { c'' f' e c } \relative c'' { c g' e c } \fixed { c'' g'' e'' c'' } \fixed c { c'' g'' e'' c'' } \fixed c'' { c g e c } Of course, plus the variations you get when replacing \fixed with yet-another option like \octave. So basically the question is whether to work with three commands instead of the previous two, whether to retire the previous \absolute altogether, and whether, when working with three commands, whether the octave reference "c" should be optional, making \absolute redundant. Personally, I am strongly of the opinion that neither working with (and documenting) three commands (as well as the introduced notational and/or conceptual redundancy) nor retiring the preexisting \absolute are worth the trouble and amount of nitpickishness they cause. Whatever we arrive at, someone™ will need to document the resulting options in the manuals and answer questions coming up on the user lists. All of that is a _tradeoff_ rather than an absolute argument. Which is why it is unlikely we'll arrive at a consensual decision which is why I proposed putting it up for vote on the user list. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
